Contestability and contested stability: The life and times of CSIRO's New Zealand cousins, the Crown Research Institutes
Sally Davenport
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
David Bibby
PVC/Dean of Science, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
PP: 181 - 191
Abstract
The progress of the Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) since their formation in 1992 from the dismantling of the centralised Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) is charted. Particular attention is paid to the funding environment, characterised by the concept of contestability, in which the CRIs have operated.
In recent years, the CRIs have lobbied for more funding stability arguing that contestability has resulted in fickle funding decisions, eroding their ability to plan for the long-term and build human capital. Certainly recent changes in policy reflect a greater concern with CRI capability. When the Government moved to increase the amount of core funding for CRIs, however, the universities, concerned that this would reduce their access to funding, argued that this 'stability' would result in ossification and less than excellent science.
The paper concludes with some reflections on the contrast between the CSIRO and CRI cousins, and on the future for CRIs.
Keywords
contestable research funding, Crown Research Institutes, university research funding New Zealand, new public management, science excellence, public choice theory
References
ACRI (2002) Transforming New Zealand Through Science: Concepts for a Performance-based Science System, Association of Crown Research Institutes, August.
Anderson H (2006) Getting the best out of our research science, New Zealand Herald June 5.
Anon (1998) Journal's criticism of CRIs answered, Evening Post Feb 3: 11.
Arnold E (2005) Reflections on Devolving Funding in Vote RS&T: A View from Abroad for MoRST New Zealand, Technopolis, October.
Aucoin P (1990) Administrative reforms in public management: Paradigms, principles, paradoxes and pendulums, Governance 3(2): 115-137.
Barnes T (2006) Why punish universities? New Zealand Herald June 5: 12.
Bibby D (2002) Developments elsewhere: What can New Zealand learn from others? In Planning New Zealand's Science Technology Infrastructure, RSNZ Miscellaneous Series 58: 14-22.
Boden R, Cox D and Nedeva M (2006) The appliance of science? New public management and strategic change, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(2): 125-141.
Boston J, Martin J, Pallot J and Walsh P (1996) Public Management: The New Zealand Model, Oxford University Press, Auckland
Cartner M and Bollinger T (1997) Science policy reforms: The New Zealand experience, Social Studies of Science 27(5): 775-803.
CCMAU (2005) Briefing to the Incoming Minister for Crown Research Institutes, Crown Company Monitoring and Advice Unit, September.
Davenport S, Carr A. and Bibby D (2002) Leveraging talent: Spin-off strategy at Industrial Research, R&D Management 32(3): 241-254.
Davenport S, Leitch S and Rip A. (2003) The 'user' in research funding negotiation processes, Science & Public Policy 30(4): 239-250.
Davis N (2006) Business R&D, innovation and economic growth: An evidence-based synthesis of the policy issues, Ministry of Economic Development Occasional Paper 06/08.
Devine S (2003) A systems look at the science reforms, New Zealand Science Review 60(2-3): 70-74.
Edmeades D (2004) Is the commercial model appropriate for science? New Zealand Science Review 61(3-4): 85-92.
Evans L, Grimes A, Wilkinson B and Teece D (1996) Economic reform in New Zealand 1985-95: The pursuit of efficiency, Journal of Economic Literature XXXIV: 1856-1902.
Fleming C (1987) Science, Settlers and Scholars, The Royal Society of New Zealand, Wellington.
Gardiner C and Ballagh R (2006) Science short-changed, Dominion Post 31 May: 5.
Goldfinch S (2001) As assessment of the research performance of the Crown Research Institutes using bibliometric methods, New Zealand Science Review 58(3): 102-110.
Gregory R (1999) Social capital theory and administrative reform: Maintaining ethical probity in public service, Public Administration Review 59(1): 63-75.
Hargreaves P (1998) New Zealand science, Nature 391: 834 (26 February).
Harris P (2005) A Stable Science Funding Environment: Review of Policy Development, Report for MoRST, September.
Hood C (1990) DE-Sir Humphreyfying the Westminster model of bureaucracy: A new style of governance, Governance 3(2): 205-214.
Lancashire J (2006) Picking up the pace - slowly, Unlimited November: 10.
Leitch S and Davenport S (2005) The politics of discourse: The marketisation of the New Zealand science and innovation system, Human Relations 58(7): 891-912.
Jordan N and Atkinson P (2003) Development of science discoveries in New Zealand Crown research institutes, New Zealand Science Review 60(2-3): 91-95.
MDL (McKinlay Douglas Ltd) (2005) Devolution: A Think Piece, Report to the Ministry of Research, Science & Technology, June.
Ministerial Science Task Group (1991) Crown Research Institutes: Research Companies for New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, June.
MoRST and CCMAU (2005) An Appraisal of Crown Research Institutes 1992-2002, available at http://www.morst.govt.nz/publications/a-z/.
MoRST (2006) Research and Development in New Zealand: A Decade in Review, Ministry of Research Science and Technology, Wellington.
New Zealand Press Association (2006) Govt science agency to negotiate contracts for some funding, July 17.
NZAS (2005) There is a Better Way: Eight Recommendations on the Science System in New Zealand, New Zealand Association of Scientists, May.
Open Letter Group of Scientists (2004) Open Letter to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology, October, available at http://www.morst.govt.nz/publications/a-z/pace-resources/.
Palmer C (1994) The reform of the public science system in New Zealand, MoRST Report No 33, Wellington, December.
Peters BG (1986) Burning the village: The civil service under Reagan and Thatcher, Parliamentary Affairs 39: 79-97.
Pockley P (1998) From Beattie to Foresight: Comparing twelve years of New Zealand and Australian science policy, New Zealand Science Review 55(3): 20-29.
Pockley P (1998a) New Zealand puts its science to profit, Nature 391: 426-427 (29 January).
Poletti E (2004) The gold in the heads of scientists: Metaphor and public sector reform. Financial Accountability & Management 20(1): 19-38.
Public Service Association (2006) A More Stable Funding Environment, Response to MoRST, February.
PUP Presentation (2005) Science for New Zealand's Future...Picking Up the Pace, August, available at http://www.morst.govt.nz/publications/a-z/pace-resources/.
Putnam R (1995) Bowling alone: America's declining social capital, Journal of Democracy 6: 65-78.
Quigley N (2006) Competition vital for science funding, Dominion Post, June 16: 5.
Rip A and van der Meulen B (1996) The post-modern research system, Science & Public Policy 23(6): 343-352.
Robinson T (1995) Australian and New Zealand science - problems for innovation, New Zealand Science Review 52(1-2): 34-41.
RSNZ (2006) Response to MoRST's December 2005 Discussion Document on a More Stable Funding Environment, February.
Scott A (2003) Time for a new agenda: Maximising the nation's scarce resources, New Zealand Science Review 60(2-3): 81-83.
Smith W (2001) Measuring and Ensuring Excellence in Government Science and Technology: International Practices - Australia and New Zealand, Report to the S&T Strategy Directorate, Industry Canada, January.
Sommer J (2001) New Zealand science policy reforms: Voices from the grassroots of science, New Zealand Science Review 58(4): 122-131.
The Open Letter Group of Scientists (2006) Comments on MoRST Sector Engagement Paper, 13 February, available at http://www.psa.org.nz/science.asp.
Winsley P (2003) How we can improve the performance of New Zealand's science system, New Zealand Science Review 60(2-3): 75-80.
Winsley P and Hammond L (1997) Policies for transforming the science and innovation system in New Zealand: 1988-97, Prometheus 15(2): 267-277.
eContent Home
